About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
's talk about chuck hagel's confirmation. i'm sure you saw it. it was great television. a lot of fireworks between hagel and john mccain. take a look. >> we are correct or incorrect. yes or no? >> my reference to the refer -- >> the question is were you right or wrong. that's a pretty straight forward question. i would like to answer and then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> joe, first of all, let me ask you this. the white house didn't jump to his defense after that stuff. why not? >> who didn't? >> the white house. the white house didn't jump to his defense. >> the white house has a sense that he has a good chance to be confirmed and everybody know that is the hearings will be contentious. no doubt there will be a lot of consengz and a lot of bad blood between this senator and colleagues and many who question his stance with regard to iran and how strong he would be and also with regard to israel. expect contention. that doesn't mean he won't be confirmed. i don't think the white house will jump to his defense. >> again, white house didn't j
hillary clinton, chuck hagel, leon panetta and now john brennan. are they getting what they want out of this, which is basically to try to put some mud on the president's record? >> absolutely. i think that's been the clear goal. >> i think actually not. if you look particularly at the hearings of chuck hagel and hillary clinton, you see a lot of basically republican free lansing going on. i was surprised at how the lack of collective, thoughtful questioning -- you would have thought that they would have gotten in behind closed doors beforehand and said, what's our line of questioning going to be, what is second kwengs and thoughtful? in fact, that wasn't the case which is why hillary clinton most vividly gave as good as she got and came out on the winning side. i think hagel, given his inconsistencies came away unscarred. i think it's also interesting, most folks may not know this, the suggestion made yesterday by dianne feinstein of having another court look at this stuff, well, she made that suggestion that at the very moment a particular federal judge, who i happen to know is sit
his remarks on benghazi. do you think hagel's confirmation will go ahead more swiftly that leon panetta has been there to testify? >> one of the requests made by a number of republicans was for a hearing on benghazi. there's a legitimate and urgent concern about protecting our state department personnel, public servants abroad. i recently returned from a trip with senators mccain and graham and others, bipartisan trip, and we saw very directly the potential threats to our state department and other personnel. so i think there is an effort and it's articulated and reflected in today's hearing that this kind of review precede the confirmation of senator hagel. i believe he will be confirmed. that vote will probably be next week in the senate armed services committee where i serve, and i think that there has been little shifting of democratic support and obviously a statement by senator mccain that he would not filibuster it. so i think the chances are very high he will be confirmed. >> one thing that's been pointed to me is general dempsey will acknowledge that the u.s. military d
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)